You are here: / Negligence
, , ,

THE ALLEGATIONS OF DEFENDANTS’ CONDUCT DURING PHOTO SHOOTS OF PLAINTIFF-MODEL WHEN SHE WAS 16 AND 17 YEARS OLD MET THE “SEXUAL CONDUCT” CRITERIA FOR THE EXTENDED STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS UNDER THE CHILD VICTIMS ACT (CVA), THE COMPLAINT STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR INVASION OF PRIVACY PURSUANT TO CIVIL RIGHTS LAW SECTION 50 (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Higgitt, modifying Supreme Court in this Child Victims Act (CVA) action, determined: (1) the conduct alleged to have been committed by defendant modeling agency (Wilhelmina) and defendant-seller of sun tan products (Cal Tan) during photo shoots of plaintiff-model when she was 16 and 17 years old met the criteria for “sexual conduct” within the meaning of the extended statute of limitations under the CVA (CPLR  214-g); (2) New York has jurisdiction over the case against Cal Tan, even though the Cal Tan photo shoot took place in Mexico (plaintiff was a New York resident); (3) the negligent supervision and breach of fiduciary causes of action against Cal Tan were properly dismissed because no allegations supported a duty to supervise; (4) the negligent supervision and breach of fiduciary duty causes of action against Wilhelmina should not have been dismissed because no arguments in opposition were interposed; and (5) the invasion of privacy causes of action (Civil Rights Law section 50) against both defendants survived the motions to dismiss. The following allegations were deemed sufficient to meet the “sexual conduct” criteria for the applicability of the CVA’s extended statute of limitations:

Plaintiff’s allegations as to Cal Tan include that she was “instructed . . . to arch her back and look at the camera ‘sexy,’ ‘like a lover,’ and think about doing ‘naughty things with your boyfriend,'” and that the photographs generated from the photoshoot “included ones in which Doe was depicted topless with her back arched in a sexually suggestive pose; looking out to the sea in a sultry manner; in which she was completely topless and ‘naked in the water’; where she is posed suggesting a willingness to engage in sexual activity; and where Doe is standing on a roof, semi- or totally naked.”

As to Wilhelmina, plaintiff alleged that at one photoshoot, “[s]he was photographed in [see-through lingerie] with another girl, also wearing see-through lingerie, together in bed. Doe and the other underage model wore coy expressions, as if together they had been doing something naughty, or sexual;” at another photoshoot, where plaintiff was unclothed, she was “instructed . . . to look ‘innocent, but sexy’ for some photos, and like a ‘bad girl’ for others”; and that at a third photoshoot she “was made to sit nude on a bed with a white sheet covering part, but not all, of her breast and buttocks.” Doe v Wilhelmina Models, Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 00969, First Dept 2-27-24\

Practice Point: This comprehensive opinion lays out the criteria for “sexual conduct” within the meaning of the extended statute of limitations under the Child Victims Act (CVA). Here allegations of defendants’ conduct during  photo shoots of plaintiff-model when she was 16 and 17 years old met the CVA sexual-conduct criteria.

 

,

THE ROLLING LADDER LEFT IN THE AISLE OF DEFENDANT’S STORE WAS READILY OBVERSABLE, WHICH SPEAKS ONLY TO DEFENDANT’S DUTY TO WARN, NOT TO THE DUTY TO KEEP THE PREMISES SAFE; THE PROTRUDING BAR ON THE LADDER CREATED A POTENTIAL TRIPPING HAZARD; DEFENDANTS’ SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant store’s motion for summary judgment in this trip and fall case should not have been granted. A rolling ladder had been left in an aisle of the store. The was a stabilizer bar which protruded out several inches on each side of the ladder. Plaintiff picked up something from the shelf, took one step back and tripped over the stabilizer bar as she turned. Supreme Court held the bar was readily observable and not inherently dangerous. The Third Department noted that the “readily observable” aspect of a condition goes to the duty to warn, but the duty to keep the area safe remains:

That the ladder was readily observable obviates defendants’ duty to warn of the ladder’s presence but not defendants’ continuing obligation to maintain the property in a reasonably safe condition … . For her part, plaintiff acknowledged seeing the ladder, but was unaware of the protruding stabilizer bar prior to her fall. Given the circumstances surrounding the incident, we cannot agree with Supreme Court’s assessment that the ladder was not inherently dangerous … . The record includes a photograph of the ladder which shows that the stabilizer bar protruded out several inches on each side. This feature, coupled with the placement of the ladder into the center of the aisle, presented a potential tripping hazard. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff as the nonmoving party … , a question of fact remains as to whether defendants’ premises were maintained in a reasonably safe condition. Wolfe v Staples, Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 00957, Third Dept 2-22-24

Practice Point: The fact that an object over which plaintiff tripped was readily observable goes to defendant’s duty to warn, but not to the duty to keep the premises safer. Here a protruding bar on a readily observable rolling ladder created a potential tripping hazard and raised a question of fact about defendant’s duty to keep the premises safe.

 

,

ALTHOUGH THE SANITARY CODE DID NOT REQUIRE DEFENDANT SUMMER CAMP TO HAVE A LIFEGUARD, THE CODE DID REQUIRE THE CAMP TO OFFER SOME SUPERVISION OF PERSONS USING THE SWIMMING POOL; THEREFORE THE SUMMER CAMP OWED PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, WHO SUFFERED A MEDICAL EMERGENCY IN THE POOL, A DUTY OF CARE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant summer-camp-owners’ motion to dismiss the complaint in this swimming-pool-incident case should not have been granted. Plaintiff’s decedent suffered some sort of “medical emergency” in defendants’ swimming pool. Supreme Court dismissed the complaint, finding that the Sanitary Code did not require the camp to have a lifeguard and therefore defendants owed no duty to the plaintiff’s decedent. The Third Department held that, although the Sanitary Code did not require a lifeguard, it did require some level of supervision of persons using the pool:

While the CPR [lifeguard] requirement is specifically exempted for temporary residences [like defendants’ summer camp], the aquatic supervisor for a supervision level III [defendants had chosen to offer supervision level III] at a temporary residence must still possess the other enumerated qualifications (see 10 NYCRR 6-1.31 [c]). To find otherwise would render meaningless 10 NYCRR 6-1.23 (a) (3), which provides that if supervision level III is chosen then the temporary residence must adhere to the supervision level III requirements … . While it is true that 10 NYCRR 6-1.23 (a) (1) (i) exempts CPR certified staff [lifeguards] from a temporary residence that selects supervision level III, it plainly does not exempt these facilities from providing any supervision. As such, we find that Supreme Court erred in determining that defendants did not owe any duty to decedent and granting defendants summary judgment on this basis. Matter of Tamrazyan v Solway Props. LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 00960, Third Dept 2-22-24

Practice Point: Here the duty owed by defendant summer camp to persons using the swimmer pool was spelled out in the Sanitary Code. Although the defendant summer camp, pursuant to the Code, was not required to provide a lifeguard, it was required to offer some supervision of persons using the swimming pool. Therefore the complaint should not have been dismissed on the ground that defendant did not owe a duty to plaintiff’s decedent, who suffered a medical emergency in the pool.

 

, ,

UNDER THE UNIQUE FACTS OF THIS MED MAL TRIAL, DEFENDANTS DID NOT ATTEMPT TO SHIFT LIABILITY TO PHYSICIANS WHO HAD BEEN AWARDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT PRIOR TO TRIAL (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Warhit, determined defendant doctor and hospital in this med mal case did not attempt at trial to shift liability to the physician-defendants who had been awarded summary judgment before trial. The opinion is fact-specific and therefore will not be summarized here. The issue is discussed in detail and relevant authority is analyzed in some depth:

The principal question presented on this appeal is whether the defendants improperly attempted at trial to shift liability to certain physician-defendants who had been awarded summary judgment prior to trial. We answer this question in the negative, and find that the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the application of the plaintiff … , in effect, for a new trial on this ground. We further conclude that the verdict was not contrary to the weight of the evidence. Angieri v Musso, 2024 NY Slip Op 00887, Second Dept 2-21-24

Practice Point: Under the specific facts brought out at trial in this med mal case, the plaintiff did not attempt to shift liability to doctors who had been awarded summary judgment prior to trial. The issue and the relevant authority are discussed in some detail.

 

,

RIDING A BICYCLE ON A PUBLIC PATH USED BY BOTH BICYCLISTS AND PEDESTRIANS IS NOT A RECREATIONAL ACTIVITY WHICH TRIGGERS THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing the Court of Claims in this bicycle-fall case, determined the assumption of the risk doctrine did not apply. Plaintiff was riding on public path which was not a designated venue for bicycling when he hit an area of broken asphalt:

… [T]he Court of Claims erred in determining that the path where the claimant’s accident occurred was a designated venue used specifically for bicycling. When the injury occurred, the claimant was engaged in a recreational bicycle ride on a paved, public surface. The claimant was not participating in an organized group event or sponsored ride. The claimant testified at trial that he could both bike and walk the path. That, in addition to the presence of pedestrians who precipitated the accident, demonstrated that the path was for public use, and not a designated venue for bicycling. Therefore, the claimant, by participating in recreational bicycling, cannot be said to have assumed the risk of being injured as a result of an alleged defective condition on the paved path, and therefore, the doctrine of primary assumption of risk is inapplicable to the claimant’s activity … . Alfieri v State of New York, 2024 NY Slip Op 00886, Second Dept 2-21-24

Practice Point: Riding a bicycle on a public path used by pedestrians and bicyclists is not a recreational activity which triggers the assumption of the risk doctrine.

 

​

, ,

THERE ARE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT POLICE OFFICER ACTED IN RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS DURING A HIGH-SPEED CHASE; THE PURSUED CAR STRUCK PLAINTIFF’S CAR; THE ACTION AGAINST THE OFFICER AND THE TOWN SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the action against a town police officer (Cunningham) and the town alleging the officer acted in reckless disregard for the safety of others during a high speed chase should not have been dismissed. The car which was pursued by Cunningham struck plaintiff’s (Kolvenbach’s) car:

… [T]he Town defendants failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact as to whether Cunningham acted with reckless disregard for the safety of others and whether such conduct was a proximate cause of Kolvenbach’s injuries … . In support of the Town defendants’ motion, they submitted, among other things, transcripts of the deposition testimony of Cunningham and other witnesses who testified that, on the day at issue, Cunningham pursued Williams at high speeds on damp roads through a main thoroughfare, and that Williams’ vehicle narrowly avoided colliding with other vehicles at earlier points during the pursuit. Thus, contrary to the determination of the Supreme Court, there are triable issues of fact as to whether Cunningham acted in reckless disregard of the safety of others in continuing the pursuit … . There also remain triable issues of fact as to whether Cunningham activated the siren on his police vehicle … and whether he violated police protocols by failing to update his supervisors on the progress of the pursuit via his police radio … . Kolvenbach v Cunningham, 2024 NY Slip Op 00900, Second Dept 2-21-24

Practice Point: This case demonstrates what may constitute “reckless disregard for the safety of others” by a police officer during a high-speed chase which may result in municipal liability for injuries caused by the pursued vehicle.

 

, , ,

FOR PURPOSES OF THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE, A LANDLORD AND A TENANT ARE NOT “UNITED IN INTEREST” (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the landlord-tenant relationship between the insured and the defendant building owner, Marion, did not constitute a “unity of interest” such that a negligence action against Marion could be commenced after the statute of limitations had run:

There are three conditions that must be satisfied for a claim asserted against a subsequent defendant such as Marion to relate back to claims asserted against another defendant: (1) both claims must arise out of the same conduct, occurrence, or transaction; (2) the new party must be “united in interest” with the original defendant, and by reason of that relationship can be charged with such notice of the institution of the lawsuit such that he will not be prejudiced in maintaining his defense on the merits; and (3) the new party knew or should have known that, but for a mistake by the plaintiff as to the identity of the proper parties, the action would have been brought against him as well … . * * *

… [A] landlord-tenant relationship, standing alone, does not give rise to vicarious liability or otherwise create unity of interest, which, as the Court of Appeals has recently reaffirmed, requires a situation in which the parties “stand or fall together and the judgment against one will similarly affect the other” … . Kingstone Ins. Co. v Marion Pharm. Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 00805, First Dept 2-15-24

Practice Point: A landlord and a tenant are not united in interest for purposes of the relation-back doctrine and will not support adding a landlord to a complaint after the statute of limitations has run.

 

,

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE WAS PREMATURE AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this slip and fall case was premature and should have been denied:

A motion for summary judgment may be denied as premature where it appears that the facts essential to oppose the motion exist but cannot then be stated (see CPLR 3212[f] …). “A party who contends that a summary judgment motion is premature is required to demonstrate that discovery might lead to relevant evidence or the facts essential to justify opposition to the motion were exclusively within the knowledge and control of the movant” … .

Here, the plaintiff demonstrated that further discovery, including records of the United States Postal Service, a deposition of the plaintiff’s former coworker, and discovery related to hearsay statements that the alleged defect had been reported to the defendants, may result in the disclosure of evidence relevant to the issue of whether the defendants had notice of the alleged defective condition … . Knowles v 21-43 27th St., LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 00759, Second Dept 2-14-24

Practice Point: Here the defendants’ motion for summary judgment was deemed premature; criteria explained.

 

, ,

THE REPEAL OF THE EMERGENCY OR DISASTER TREATMENT PROTECTION ACT (EDTPA) WAS NOT RETROACTIVE; THEREFORE DEFENDANT’S NURSING HOME WAS IMMUNE FROM SUIT STEMMING FROM PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT’S DEATH FROM COVID-19 (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the repeal of the Emergency or Disaster Treatment Protection Act (EDTPA) in April 2021 was not retroactive. Therefore defendant’s nursing home was immune from suit stemming from plaintiff’s decedent’s death from COVID-19. Although the Act does not confer immunity from gross negligence, gross negligence was not demonstrated because the Department of Health required nursing homes to admit COVID-positive patients:

As to the application of the EDTPA, defendant was entitled to immunity under that statute. The documents submitted with defendant’s motion to dismiss, including several pandemic-related policies, State Department of Health directives, and more than 1600 of pages of the decedent’s medical records, demonstrate that defendant was providing health care services to the decedent under the COVID-19 emergency orders when he was infected and, before that, “in accordance with applicable law”; the care provided was “impacted by” defendant’s “decisions or activities in response to or as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak and in support of the state’s directives”; and the decedent was provided care “in good faith” … . Hasan v Terrace Acquisitions II, LLC, 2024 NY Slip Op 00739, First Dept 2-13-24

Practice Point: This decision includes an extensive discussion of when a statute can be deemed to apply retroactively.

 

THE SIDEWALK ON WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS RIDING HIS MOTORIZED BICYCLE WHEN HE FELL WAS NOT DESIGNED OR SUITABLE FOR RECREATIONAL USE; THEREFORE THE PROPERTY OWNER, SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY, COULD NOT RELY ON THE RECREATIONAL-USE STATUTE (GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW 9-103) TO ESCAPE LIABILITY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the recreational use statute (General Obligations Law 9-103(1)(a)) did not apply to the sidewalk on which plaintiff was riding his motorized bicycle when he fell. Therefore defendant was not entitled escape liability based upon the statute. The sidewalk was along a busy road on the Syracuse University campus and therefore was not designed or suitable for recreational use:

General Obligations Law § 9-103 (1) (a) provides that “an owner, lessee or occupant of premises . . . owes no duty to keep the premises safe for entry or use by others for . . . bicycle riding . . . or to give warning of any hazardous condition . . . on such premises to persons entering for such purposes.” The statute was enacted to “induce property owners, who might otherwise be reluctant to do so for fear of liability, to permit persons to come on their property to pursue specified activities” … . The rationale for the statute is that “outdoor recreation is good; New Yorkers need suitable places to engage in outdoor recreation; [and] more places will be made available if property owners do not have to worry about liability when recreationists come onto their land” … . The statute applies when two conditions are met: (1) the plaintiff is engaged in one of the activities identified in section 9-103 and (2) the plaintiff is recreating on land suitable for that activity … .

… In evaluating the suitability of a property for a particular activity, courts look to whether the premises is the “type of property which is not only physically conducive to the particular activity or sport but is also a type which would be appropriate for public use in pursuing the activity as recreation” … . … [W]e conclude that plaintiff sufficiently alleged that the sidewalk at issue was not appropriate for public use in pursuing the recreational activity of bike riding. Plaintiff alleged that the sidewalk area where [plaintiff] fell was not designated by defendant for bike riding and was situated along a busy campus roadway near the front entrance of an academic building containing classrooms and offices. Such a property is not appropriate for public use in pursuing bicycle riding as a recreational activity … . Inasmuch as the recreational use statute does not apply here, the court erred in granting the motion [to dismiss]. Delaney v Syracuse Univ., 2024 NY Slip Op 00731, Fourth Dept 2-9-24

Practice Point: General Obligations Law 9-103 allows property owners to open up their property for recreational use, including bicycling, without fear of liability for injury to those using the property for recreational purposes, Here the sidewalk on which plaintiff was riding when he fell was nether designed nor appropriate for recreational use. Therefore the property owner could not take advantage of the recreational-use statute to escape liability.

 

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy